Starts with a C and rhymes with @ss, which is completely appropriate.
Other than him I've encountered a few people on various history forums like the ones I've described, not published academics though other than an old professor of mine. He used to teach that when looking at black dynasties in Egypt only the 25th dynasty counted and ascribing that term to the rest of native Egypt was "patently false". He's since fallen back on his hardline as far as that though over the years.
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: Charles Barkley is 75% black genetically.
There you have it. A use of 'black' completely divorced from skin pigmentation, which we've been told over 25 thread pages doesn't exist.
We've been told westerners religiously stick to the dictionary's pigmentation-based use of 'black' in real life. Right. [/qb]
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: There you have it. A use of 'black' completely divorced from skin pigmentation, which we've been told over 25 thread pages doesn't exist.
We've been told westerners religiously stick to the dictionary's pigmentation-based use of 'black' in real life. Right.
People are being disingenuous [/QB]
Hope that refreshes your memory Fourty2Tribes.
And BTW, I agree with your pre-Abusir statement that these so-called "exclusively skin pigmentation" people are "disingenuous", if we want to put it politely. But you seem to have done quite the flip flop post Abusir.
How much 'black' do the Abusir mummies have, Fourty2Tribes? See how you've set yourself up using your own terminology?
You can't walk around with your pants down like this and claim people who say AE weren't black in this sense are necessarily racist.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @Ish Gebor ^ That guy is "Black" The images on the wall are "Black". If that is what we are talking about then the discussion is over.
If we are talking about biological affinity its a totally different ballgame. It seems like with some folks Biological affinity overrides phenotype.....I am one of them.
Would his paternal clades be mostly African or "Eurasian"?
I dont know. He would have to get tested and see the results. He could be a South Indian working in Egypt.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: I learned my lesson well. I will not play the mod role. But if you ship this old Sephardi pirate a case of Smith & Cross and a box of Arturo Fuentes well I'd gladly delete a whole thread for you.
thanks, but If you could clear your inbox so I can send you a message to show.
"Sorry, that member's private message mailbox is currently full. Please try sending your private message another time."
Can you clear it yet? its about some deletion of some spam threads, it wont' take long.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
R u deaf?
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: @ Tuk, can you please clear your PM so I can send you a message/mod request?
I learned my lesson well. I will not play the mod role. But if you ship this old Sephardi pirate a case of Smith & Cross and a box of Arturo Fuentes well I'd gladly delete a whole thread for you.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you want to overthrow the white man you have to oool together like minded people, so either all brown skinned people are black or all black skinned people are brown.
After this is decided the revolution can proceed.
The problem is whose side will the East Asians take and if they side with the dark skinned people will they share the power or will they try to dominate?
Also who owns Big Black Dick rum? I noticed it is made in the Cayman Islands
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: Charles Barkley is 75% black genetically.
quote: There you have it. A use of 'black' completely divorced from skin pigmentation, which we've been told over 25 thread pages doesn't exist.
We've been told westerners religiously stick to the dictionary's pigmentation-based use of 'black' in real life. Right.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: There you have it. A use of 'black' completely divorced from skin pigmentation, which we've been told over 25 thread pages doesn't exist.
We've been told westerners religiously stick to the dictionary's pigmentation-based use of 'black' in real life. Right.
People are being disingenuous
Hope that refreshes your memory Fourty2Tribes.
My full quote was in reference to the hypocrisy of Marry Lefkowitz's use of the one drop rule. Genetically one drop by America's definition of race is 6%. For her or anyone to say that you need the one drop rule for ancient Egyptians is so nonsensical that I will dismiss them as racist until proven otherwise.
quote: And BTW, I agree with your pre-Abusir statement that these so-called "exclusively skin pigmentation" people are "disingenuous", if we want to put it politely. But you seem to have done quite the flip flop post Abusir.
How much 'black' do the Abusir mummies have, Fourty2Tribes? See how you've set yourself up using your own terminology?
You can't walk around with your pants down like this and claim people who say AE weren't black in this sense are necessarily racist.
Based on the Fayum portraits Id say the Abusir mummies are yesteryears Puerto Ricans with a minority who are black by the majority of their genetics being SSA but all of them are one drop black. If Marry Lefkowitz was talking about them and not ancient Egypt in general I would be ok with such a statement.
Personally, I consider race to be 100% opinion so I don't really argue it until people bring up modern definitions.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point is, you clearly subscribed to a definition of 'black' that is divorced from skin pigmentation and centered on a certain type of ancestry. So much so that you called the 'pigmentation only' crowd "disingenuous".
1) So how can you establish that someone is racist for disqualifying people from this category based on your own criteria?
2) In your view, how 'black' are the recently sampled Natufians and Abusir samples in this sense (in percentages)?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The point is, you clearly subscribed to a definition of 'black' that is divorced from skin pigmentation and centered on a certain type of ancestry. So much so that you called the 'pigmentation only' crowd "disingenuous".
Indeed I do. My definition of black is whatever helps deal with white supremacy, genes and skin color be damn. I call people disingenuous when they have double standards for state and nation's definitions of black ie Charles Barkley and ancient Egypt. Or if they have double standards for their personal life.
For example, a lot of these alt-righters would and have argued that Egyptians were caucasians or not black but let people who depict themselves as move into their neighborhood.
quote: 1) So how can you establish that someone is racist for disqualifying people from this category based on your own criteria?
2) How 'black' are the recently sampled Natufians and Abusir samples in this sense (in percentages)? [/qb]
Its not based on my criteria. Its based on state and nation. If someone says that race is a social construct then I ask them who should play ancient Egyptians in a movie. Who looks like them?
2) Do we have more than just haplogroups on the Natufian and Abusir samples?
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mod is useless. If anyone is wondering does an admin still visit this site? Answer is yes. I was the Donald Dump troll account last year. The purpose of that account was to see if an admin would ban me. The whole account was deleted, with an "account disabled" message that comes up if I try to log on. The mod doesn't have banning power as far as I am aware, only admin. So it must have been the admin. Basically I was making regular posters from this forum leave by spamming huge desktop images in threads so no one could read them, nor visitors (random browsers). This made the website traffic and posts of users sharply decrease, over about a 4-week period. Goes to show the admins are only after $$$ generated by forum activity & clicks.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Mod is useless. If anyone is wondering does an admin still visit this site? Answer is yes. I was the Donald Dump troll account last year. The purpose of that account was to see if an admin would ban me. The whole account was deleted, with an "account disabled" message that comes up if I try to log on. The mod doesn't have banning power as far as I am aware, only admin. So it must have been the admin. Basically I was making regular posters from this forum leave by spamming huge desktop images in threads so no one could read them, nor visitors (random browsers). This made the website traffic and posts of users sharply decrease, over about a 4-week period. Goes to show the admins are only after $$$ generated by forum activity & clicks.
I thought the user name that did that was White Nubian
what was your motive in doing this?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Offtopic, but I think this is quite important: moderator should hand over his account/power to someone else. If I'm not mistaken account sign-up works again (it didn't for like 4 years, probably disabled because of Carlos Coke's shenanigans); the user Capra signed up here very recently - proving new people can register this year. So if current mod still wants to post he can simply create a new account. The question is who should the moderator power be give to... I would vote for Lioness for three reasons: (a) they are mostly active [the mod needs to be online at least to check things daily, the current mod sucks at this], and (b) the Lioness shows progression in his/her posts, they've obviously learnt over time. Like 5 years ago they were a complete dumbass, now they're a lot smarter. This is a similar progression like myself: when I joined here I didn't even know things like natural selection, clines etc. (3) Finally Lioness doesn't fall inside either the 'Eurocentric' [rather Hamitic] or Afrocentric crowds. Anyway, that's my 2¢.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
If there was ever a fleeting thought in a moderator's mind that maybe I should be moderator your endorsement hurts that prospect rather than helps. You just admitted to attacking the forum for a month and are not explaining the motive or the fact that no one recalls this name you mentioned Donald Dump
The whole attack that occurred demonstrated the significant technical limitations of the moderator controls making the position less appealing than one typical forums.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would definitely take up being mod. IMO I'm very objective and have ZERO personal vendettas against anyone. Even if I disagree with their personal viewpoints.
Edit: Also I'm ALREADY mod of another site. So I have more experience being a mod than most on here...
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: I would definitely take up being mod. IMO I'm very objective and have ZERO personal vendettas against anyone. Even if I disagree with their personal viewpoints.
Edit: Also I'm ALREADY mod of another site. So I have more experience being a mod than most on here...
would you have any rules as moderator?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Of course. However they would be fair and simple.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ancient Egyptians can be partially modeled as Angel's Anatolian and Greek samples
[white racist insult to DougM who disagrees as an ape having a fit deleted].
There, I said it. Ancient Egyptians can be modeled as partly consisting of Angel's Nea Nikomedeian sample. ?
.
For the 8th time already step up and present your Nea Nikomedeia / prehistoric Egypt hypothesis
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @Ish Gebor ^ That guy is "Black" The images on the wall are "Black". If that is what we are talking about then the discussion is over.
If we are talking about biological affinity its a totally different ballgame. It seems like with some folks Biological affinity overrides phenotype.....I am one of them.
Yes, the people on that wall is what we consider black. And the people who live in that region also consider themselves black. But if we have to believe Ptolemy these people didn't exist in that region.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @Akachi. Here is your problem to solve. Egyptian Nubians show DISCONTINUITY with Sudanese Nubians in regards to E-M2.
Sudanese by and large in nearly all contemporary studies show discontinuity with Egyptians as far as E-M2, A3b2, B2a, E-V32, V-65, M128,
You can go ahead and play the Euroclown role and say Egyptian Nubians are recent migrants from Sudan if you want but we know that the area where hey live has always been differentiated. They are not new migrants to the region.
You are arguing these populations come from Sudan based on a lineage that is not at all found in Sudan!
That's interesting.
When you say discontinued, do you mean in gradient level?
quote: These type of population movements, or demic expansions, driven by climatic change and/or spread of pastoralism and to some extent agriculture,51–54 are not uncommon in human history. This scenario is more substantiated by the refining of the E-P2 (Trombetta et al35) and its two basal clades E-M2 and E-M329, which are believed to be prevalent exclusively in Western Africa and Eastern Africa, respectively.
—Rosaria Scozzari
An unbiased resource of novel SNP markers provides a new chronology for the human Y chromosome and reveals a deep phylogenetic structure in Africa
quote: E-M78 represents 74.5% of haplogroup E, the highest frequencies observed in Masalit and Fur populations. E-M33 (5.2%) is largely confined to Fulani and Hausa, whereas E-M2 is re- stricted to Hausa.
—Eyoab I Gebremeskel
Y-chromosome E haplogroups: their distribution and implication to the origin of Afro-Asiatic languages and pastoralism
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @Ish Gebor ^ That guy is "Black" The images on the wall are "Black". If that is what we are talking about then the discussion is over.
If we are talking about biological affinity its a totally different ballgame. It seems like with some folks Biological affinity overrides phenotype.....I am one of them.
Yes, the people on that wall is what we consider black. And the people who live in that region also consider themselves black. But if we have to believe Ptolemy these people didn't exist in that region.
Can you cite where Ptolemy says this?
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
What type of E-M2 in the Sudan? I didnt want to sound too ignant so I didn't say anything... cant we just google E-M2 and see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_E-V38 Incidence of E-V38 Sudanese 12.5% (4/32) [24] From a 2008 study. E-M2 is typically 2-5% in modern Egypt and 500 years ago... Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^They are probably West/Central African immigrants (e.g. Hausa).
We have at least half a dozen tribes that migrated into Sudan from West Africa around the 18th century. The Baggara tribes and the Falata are such tribes.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
So you got more than Angel. Don't be stingy share the loot.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
I don't understand how your answer relates to what I said, but maybe it's just me. Let me rephrase. Is it racist to say AE weren't black by this standard and the ancestry you refer to here, yes or no:
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: Charles Barkley is 75% black genetically.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^They are probably West/Central African immigrants (e.g. Hausa).
Not at no 10%, especially before the Sudan split.
10% is a ratio and meaningless in terms of the actual numbers that are implied. Do you know what the numbers you posted earlier (the ones in parenthesis) mean? They mean that you're only talking about 4 Sudanese E-M2 carriers:
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Here's to a boy what shoots his mouth off, cowardly hides behind indirect innuendo, shits on everything our previous generations left for us to build on, denies racism but taunts blacks with "wacist" and "chimp out" the same white racialist do, wraps up the Hamitic Hypothesis, caucasoid north and east Africa, and Hamiticism into a 21st century genetics package then confuses the unwary with metric trees, doesn't fully cite any data he presents from papers and rages against so-called agenda driven folks and what not while boldly proclaiming his faith and agenda: self appointed MythBuster (what arrogance) BUT won't man up and demonstrate the least piece of backup for a tiny Macedonian village seeding ancient Egypt like he claims they definitely did.
For the 10th time now step up and present your Nea Nikomedeia / prehistoric Egypt hypothesis
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^They are probably West/Central African immigrants (e.g. Hausa).
Not at no 10%, especially before the Sudan split.
Yeah, but that's just the Hausa sample from that study. The other 413 Sudanese men have zero E-M2.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be clear, I'm not denying that E-M2 was in the Sahara. But the claim is that haplotype IV in Lucotte's modern Egyptian samples represents a relic of such early holocene E-M2. This assumes all haplotype IV is even E-M2, which no one knows; see the assumption-ridden Lucotte report. Given the fact that substantial African ancestry in Egyptians doesn't seem to have survived beyond TIP in at least some locations (Abusir mummies), and the post-Roman increase of African ancestry, the mere fact of finding African ancestry in Egyptians doesn't inspire a lot of confidence that it's old.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^They are probably West/Central African immigrants (e.g. Hausa).
Not at no 10%, especially before the Sudan split.
Yeah, but that's just the Hausa sample from that study. The other 413 Sudanese men have zero E-M2.
Capra do you know the original location or birthplace of the Hausa Tribe/Ethnicity? Not a rhetorical question at all, I'm legit asking.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
I don't understand how your answer relates to what I said, but maybe it's just me. Let me rephrase. Is it racist to say AE weren't black by this standard and the ancestry you refer to here, yes or no:
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: Charles Barkley is 75% black genetically.
I assume that anyone saying you need one drop rules to call ancient Egyptians black are on a cognitive dissonance stunt. I'm hesitant to use ignorance as an excuse especially for someone like Marry Leftkowitz. Barkley's genetics are mostly in reference to his skin color. There are people who play the color game too who will say that ancient Egyptians aren't dark enough to be considered black. Cass rides that fence. The only people who question someone like Barkley's race are African Americans trying to adjust one drop standards ie restructure the race. Show me some white folks who would argue that Barkley is too light to be black. So hold North Africans to the same standard as African Americans.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: 10% is a ratio and meaningless in terms of the actual numbers that are implied. Do you know what the numbers you posted earlier (the ones in parenthesis) mean? They mean that you're only talking about 4 Sudanese E-M2 carriers:
quote:Sudanese 12.5% . (4/32)
Yeah yeah los sample sizeos. So what do you think the real number is? I'm saying that if its close to 10%, it aint west African immigrants or Turk slaves.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Here's to a boy what shoots his mouth off, shits on everything our previous generations left for us to build on, denies racism but taunts blacks with "wacist" and "chimp out" the same white racialist do, wraps up the Hamitic Hypothesis, caucasoid north and east Africa, and Hamiticism into a 21st century genetics package then confuses the unwary with metric trees, doesn't fully cite any data he presents from papers and rages against agenda driven posts and what not while boldly declaring his faith and agenda as MythBuster (what arrogance) BUT won't man up and demonstrate the least piece of backup for the tiny Macedonian village he claims seeded ancient Egypt.
I think he's working still with a Saharan [North African] model opposed to Hamiticism; Basal Eurasian % in EEF's is fairly high, so he's arguing Early Neolithic Anatolians & Aegeans show pre-Dynastic/Early Dynastic Egyptian metric craniofacial ties (Brace et al. 1993? I forgot the samples.) So Basal Eurasian = Saharan. I dispute this since I think EEF is Arabian hunter gatherer. As far as I am aware no one has made the Saharan claim in a paper/study. So credit to him for coming up with a hypothesis not yet proposed if its plausible.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
What are you his paid agent or some snot? Shut up and let the man speak for himself.
But as for what you propose sure ssome BAs were in the Arabian Peninsula just as some were in Northeastern Africa. I see the two as an either side of Great Rift Valley region.
AFAICMO, Laz's Basal Eurasian would be people's between the supposed first successful Hss leaving Northeastern Africa and the ancestors of Mesolithic Iranians and or Natufians.
I agree with the opinion there were plenty other human species that early Hss met mingled and mated with -- the lonely and unattractive likely did it the most. Not to say some didn't find the different skull shape and facial features attractive or a fetishers wet dream. Then some males only cared if 'the monkey got tits' or 'look at the monkey, dat asz'.
Coz I mean let's face it, gene flow means fucking.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: I assume that anyone saying you need one drop rules to call ancient Egyptians black are on a cognitive dissonance stunt.
Well, under the one drop rule the AE may be more African than they are under your criteria. Under the one drop role they're at least unquestionably 'black' (using that weird logic). Under your standards, they're only as black as they fit your own description of the term. According to you Charles Barkley is 75% 'black' and 'black' is that 75% in him. If you apply this thinking to a lot of African(-derived) populations (e.g. Natufians, Abusir, who no doubt have ancient Egyptian ancestry) you will severely underestimate their African ancestry.
Upper Palaeolithic OOA populations only ~0-10% 'black'? C'mon bro. Own up to the consequences of the terminology you use. People who deny AE are 'black' using your standards are still using your standards. Just because they come to an undesired and inconvenient conclusion it doesn't mean they're not using the same standards.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Here's to a boy what shoots his mouth off, shits on everything our previous generations left for us to build on, denies racism but taunts blacks with "wacist" and "chimp out" the same white racialist do, wraps up the Hamitic Hypothesis, caucasoid north and east Africa, and Hamiticism into a 21st century genetics package then confuses the unwary with metric trees, doesn't fully cite any data he presents from papers and rages against agenda driven posts and what not while boldly declaring his faith and agenda as MythBuster (what arrogance) BUT won't man up and demonstrate the least piece of backup for the tiny Macedonian village he claims seeded ancient Egypt.
I think he's working still with a Saharan [North African] model opposed to Hamiticism; Basal Eurasian % in EEF's is fairly high, so he's arguing Early Neolithic Anatolians & Aegeans show pre-Dynastic/Early Dynastic Egyptian metric craniofacial ties (Brace et al. 1993? I forgot the samples.) So Basal Eurasian = Saharan. I dispute this since I think EEF is Arabian hunter gatherer. As far as I am aware no one has made the Saharan claim in a paper/study. So credit to him for coming up with a hypothesis not yet proposed if its plausible.
nahtahtah bwoii I think u made a typo. For your sake I hope that is a typo. And btw EEF isn't ambiguous or mysterious anymore, we know wtf an EEF is and that second E, (or first depending on the user lol) belongs its ass right up in there ...EEF.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: Show me some white folks who would argue that Barkley is too light to be black. So hold North Africans to the same standard as African Americans.
Barkley is #27 on the Luschan Scale. Unambiguous black is #29-36, so he's pretty close. Few people would disagree his skin colour is black, but some ambiguity still exists. Do you know about fuzzy sets? The problem is when you run into mid # 20s like Obama. Its then a case of maximum ambiguity (again, look up fuzzy logic). Are the Basters of South Africa black? They're the same pigmentation as Obama.
There wouldn't be much a problem if Afrocentrists just argued the low ambiguity cases like Barkley are black. But they're arguing for maximum ambiguity and I've seen bizarre posts where light brown shades are described as 'black'. Anyway, that's probably the last I will discuss this its quite boring and as others pointed out skin colour is irrelevant to phylogeny (because of convergent evolution.)
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: nahtahtah bwoii I think u made a typo. For your sake I hope that is a typo. And btw EEF isn't ambiguous or mysterious anymore, we know wtf an EEF is and that second E, (or first depending on the user lol) belongs its ass right up in there ...EEF. [/QB]
Yes, its a typo. Take into account I'm new to this ancient DNA stuff (like 4 months). I had to even google these terms like Basal Eurasian etc. Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Yes, its a typo. Take into account I'm new to this ancient DNA stuff (like 4 months). I had to even google these terms like Basal Eurasian etc.
Iight Cool, while you're in your rational state, run that back in context with everything you've seen and have been reading in these Abusir mummy threads... sh!t's mind-blowing, so to speak.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @Ish Gebor ^ That guy is "Black" The images on the wall are "Black". If that is what we are talking about then the discussion is over.
If we are talking about biological affinity its a totally different ballgame. It seems like with some folks Biological affinity overrides phenotype.....I am one of them.
Yes, the people on that wall is what we consider black. And the people who live in that region also consider themselves black. But if we have to believe Ptolemy these people didn't exist in that region.
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: Show me some white folks who would argue that Barkley is too light to be black. So hold North Africans to the same standard as African Americans.
Barkley is #27 on the Luschan Scale. Unambiguous black is #29-36, so he's pretty close. Few people would disagree his skin colour is black, but some ambiguity still exists. Do you know about fuzzy sets? The problem is when you run into mid # 20s like Obama. Its then a case of maximum ambiguity (again, look up fuzzy logic). Are the Basters of South Africa black? They're the same pigmentation as Obama.
There wouldn't be much a problem if Afrocentrists just argued the low ambiguity cases like Barkley are black. But they're arguing for maximum ambiguity and I've seen bizarre posts where light brown shades are described as 'black'. Anyway, that's probably the last I will discuss this its quite boring and as others pointed out skin colour is irrelevant to phylogeny (because of convergent evolution.)
It get's comical when euroloons think they have any say in who's black / African American. Then have the nerve and even audacity to call this a problem. I can tell you, there is no problem, but for your own.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
[/qb]
[/QB]![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
its about some deletion of some spam threads, it wont' take long.
Printer-friendly view of this topic